[Cite as Strongsville v. Wheeler, 2013-Ohio-1554.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 98757
CITY OF STRONGSVILLE
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
EUGENE W. WHEELER, JR.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Berea Municipal Court
Case No. 12 TRD 02913
BEFORE: Kilbane, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and Keough, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 18, 2013
APPELLANT
Eugene W. Wheeler, Jr., pro se
1296 Riverwoods Drive
Hinckley, Ohio 44233
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
George F. Lonjak
City of Strongsville Prosecutor
614 Superior Avenue
Suite 1310
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Eugene W. Wheeler, Jr. (“Wheeler”), pro se, appeals his
speeding conviction following a bench trial in Berea Municipal Court. For the reasons
set forth below, we affirm.
{¶2} On May 25, 2012, Wheeler was issued a citation for traveling at a speed of 73
m.p.h. in a 60 m.p.h. zone. Wheeler pled not guilty at his arraignment. The matter
proceeded to a bench trial on June 22, 2012, at which the trial court found Wheeler guilty
of speeding. The trial court fined him $50, plus court costs, and stayed the imposition of
his sentence pending appeal.
{¶3} Wheeler now appeals, raising the following three assignments of error for
review.
Assignment of Error One
The trial court erred and case should have been dismissed due to 5th
amendment due process of law rights, 6th amendment right to a speedy trial,
and O.R.C. 2945.71(A).
Assignment of Error Two
Trial court erred in proceeding with an errand trial against an objection and
judicial notice to dismiss due to violation of right to speedy trial which was
compromised as evidenced by the Berea Municipal Court Rule 8 governing
time frame requests for all motions and continuances.
Assignment of Error Three
The trial court erred by not dismissing this case immediately upon the
violation of appellant’s 5th amendment due process of law rights. For
which an argument can also be made that not only was the availability to
use the judicial procedures according to the time constraints imposed by an
appearance date so close to the ending date for a speedy trial were
compromised, it appears the electronic posting of the Administrative Order
Rules of Berea Municipal Court although “It is so ordered” neither Judge
Mark A. Comstock nor the Clerk of Court Raymond J. Wohl have officially
signed the electronically posted Berea’s Court Rules, which is in
accordance with Berea Rule 14 A, B, and O.R.C. 1306.06 Electronic record
or signature satisfies legal requirements. So we can assume all records
electronically must have an electronic signature to be valid and enforceable.
{¶4} Within these assigned errors, Wheeler essentially argues his due process
rights and speedy trial rights were violated. Wheeler first argues his due process rights
were violated because the citing officer, as opposed to someone “in the judiciary or a
clerk of court,” signed the summons in his citation. Wheeler’s argument is misguided.
{¶5} In Ohio traffic cases, “the complaint and summons shall be the ‘Ohio
Uniform Traffic Ticket.”’ Traf.R. 3(A). The issuing authority for tickets may be the
law enforcement agency of the municipality. Id. at 3(D). “If the issuing officer
personally serves a copy of the completed ticket on the defendant, the issuing officer shall
note the date of personal service on the ticket in the space provided.” Id. at (E)(1).
{¶6} In the instant case, the issuing officer cited Wheeler for traveling in excess of
the posted speed limit. The officer personally served a copy of the completed ticket on
Wheeler, and noted the date of personal service (May 25, 2012) and the summons date
(June 20, 2012) in the spaces provided on the ticket. Based on the foregoing, the
summons was properly served on Wheeler.
{¶7} Wheeler next argues that his right to speedy trial was violated because his
trial was set two days after his arraignment, which “gave him no time for discovery.”
{¶8} Wheeler was charged with a minor misdemeanor under R.C. 4511.21.
According to R.C. 2945.71(A), “a person against whom a charge * * * of minor
misdemeanor is pending in a court of record, shall be brought to trial within thirty days
after the person’s arrest or the service of summons.”
{¶9} Here, Wheeler did not waive his right to speedy trial, but he claims that
under R.C. 2945.72(H), the trial court should have continued his trial to allow him more
than two days to prepare for trial.1 Based on the record before us, Wheeler’s speedy trial
rights would have been violated if his trial was held outside the 30-day time frame
commencing on May 25, 2012 (the date of personal service).2 Here, Wheeler proceeded
to trial on June 22, 2012, which was within the 30-day time frame. As a result, his right
to speedy trial was not violated.
{¶10} Accordingly the first, second, and third assignments of error are overruled.
{¶11} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
1R.C.2945.72(H) provides that: “[t]he time within which an accused must be
brought to trial * * * may be extended only by * * * [t]he period of any continuance
granted on the accused’s own motion, and the period of any reasonable continuance
granted other than upon the accused’s own motion[.]”
2Wenote that Wheeler failed to include the transcript of the proceedings as
required by App.R. 9(A), or an acceptable alternative as required by App.R. 9.
“Without such evidence, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings.”
Bambeck v. Catholic Dioceses of Cleveland, 8th Dist. No. 86894, 2006-Ohio-4883.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Berea
Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR